DCT

1:22-cv-07006

Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-07006, N.D. Ill., 12/13/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online retailers are selling footwear that infringes its design patent for a distinctive footwear upper associated with the UGG brand.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is centered on the ornamental design of consumer footwear, a market where distinctive and recognizable aesthetics can be a significant commercial asset.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a legal strategy commonly used to pursue infringement claims against a large number of anonymous, often foreign-based, online sellers whose identities are not known at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-11-08 '161 Patent Priority Date
2021-08-10 '161 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-13 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161 - "FOOTWEAR UPPER"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161, "FOOTWEAR UPPER", Issued August 10, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the field of consumer fashion and footwear, establishing a unique and recognizable product appearance is a key competitive differentiator. The complaint emphasizes that UGG Products are "enormously popular and even iconic" due in part to their "innovative design" (Compl. ¶6). The patent seeks to protect the specific aesthetic appearance of one such design.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a footwear upper ('161 Patent, Claim, col. 1:57-59). The protected design is defined exclusively by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's seven figures, which show the article from various perspectives ('161 Patent, Description, col. 1:61-65). Crucially, the patent specification states that the elements shown in broken lines, such as the sole of the shoe, "form no part of the claimed design," limiting protection to the solid-lined upper portion ('161 Patent, Description, col. 1:66-68).
  • Technical Importance: The design is associated with the UGG brand, which the complaint alleges has become a symbol of "high quality" and is among the "most recognizable premium footwear products in the world" (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent's single claim (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).
  • The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" ('161 Patent, Claim, col. 1:57-59).
  • In design patents, the "elements" are the collective visual features shown in the drawings. The scope of the claim is defined by the overall ornamental appearance of the footwear upper as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1 through 7.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are footwear products referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold by the unidentified Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶3, ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" that sell the Infringing Products to consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶11). These online stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and often use content and images that make it difficult to distinguish them from legitimate sellers (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges Defendants are unlicensed and unauthorized to use the patented "UGG Design" (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on a visual comparison. The core allegation is that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design and that an ordinary observer would be deceived by the similarity (Compl. ¶3, ¶24). The complaint provides a table with multiple views of the patented design, which serves as the visual basis for the infringement claim (Compl. ¶7-8, p. 4). This table reproduces figures from the '161 patent, illustrating the perspective, side, front, rear, and top views of the claimed design.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design in the '161 Patent. The analysis must properly exclude any comparison of the footwear's sole, which is explicitly disclaimed from the patent's scope through the use of broken lines ('161 Patent, Description, col. 1:66-68). The dispute may focus on whether any differences between the accused products and the drawings are minor enough that an ordinary observer would still be deceived.
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the accused products are not pictured in the complaint (beyond a reference to a non-provided Exhibit 1), a key question will be what the products sold by Defendants actually look like. The case will depend on a side-by-side visual comparison between the accused products, once identified through discovery or other means, and the design shown in the '161 Patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim's scope is primarily defined by the drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the entire claim, and its scope is defined by the patent's figures. The interpretation is not a textual exercise but a visual one. The outcome of the case hinges on the visual comparison between this claimed design and the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall "ornamental design," suggesting that the focus should be on the general visual impression rather than on minute details. The patentee may argue that any product creating the same overall visual effect infringes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" ('161 Patent, Description, col. 1:66-68). This language definitively limits the protected design to only the "upper" shown in solid lines, excluding the sole. Any infringement analysis must be strictly confined to this portion of the article.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" to sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶20). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis is the alleged coordinated and deceptive nature of the Defendants' online sales operations.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale, sold, and imported products that infringe the UGG Design (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The factual support for knowledge appears to be the alleged nature of Defendants' business model, which purportedly involves concealing their identities and operating as a network of counterfeiters (Compl. ¶15, ¶17-18).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central procedural question will be one of enforcement and identification: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous "Schedule A" defendants and establish personal jurisdiction to obtain and enforce a judgment against foreign-based online sellers?
  • The primary substantive issue will be one of visual comparison: does the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused footwear create substantially the same visual impression as the claimed footwear "upper" in the '161 Patent, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer?
  • A key evidentiary question for damages will be one of intent: does the evidence of Defendants' alleged business practices—such as using multiple aliases and offshore accounts—sufficiently demonstrate knowledge and intent to support a finding of willful infringement?